Vision Vancouver 2011: Member Driven, Empowering Our Members, Open Nominations Besides Gregor. Vision 2014: Director Driven, Disempowering Our Members, Closed Nominations, Rigged Democracy.

UPDATE COPE Vancouver and Vancouver Greens will have open candidate nomination meetings for 2014. Not sure if NPA Vancouver or Cedar Party or VanTEAM will have open nominations or not.

 2014 Vision Vancouver repudiates the 2011 Vision Vancouver’s semi democratic candidate semi open nomination process in favour of 2014’s Vision’s closed nominations for most spots.

The 2011 Mayoral spot was NOT open; Mayor Gregor Robertson was & is apparently afraid of competition and/or criticism so they had a “leadership review” 50%+1 process instead of a real open democratic competition.

In a post Friday May 2nd, 2014, Vision Vancouver announced that they would NOT have semi open nominations for candidates like they had last election cycle in 2011.

They chose rigged democracy for their AGM 2 days later May 4th 2014, and a second class level of candidates at a later meeting, June 22nd 2014.

Incumbent Vision Vancouver elected officials will participate in a leadership review vote by its members at this Sunday’s Annual General Meeting, which begins at 2pm at the SFU Segal School of Business at 500 Granville Street. Non-incumbent candidates will participate in a full and open nomination process concluding on June 22nd.

2014 Vision Vancouver has disempowering it’s members, sending a message to Vision Vancouver members and Vancouver voter that:

  • Vision’s board of directors knows best
  • Vision’s board of directors does not trust it’s members
  • Prioritizes protecting it’s apparently vulnerable incumbents at all costs
  • Afraid of new candidates with new ideas
  • Chooses rigged democracy over open democracy

In 2011, Vision Vancouver Board of Directors had a semi democratic kind of open candidate nomination process.

2011 Vision Vancouver bragged that their candidate nomination process “empowers our members with the task of selecting our candidates for the November 2011 election” and “continues it’s tradition of open and member driven party process”.

From Vision’s fact sheet on Frances Bula’s blog January 30th 2011, here’s Vision’s 2011 version of semi democracy with kind of open nominations IF the Vision Vancouver board of directors allows you to compete.

Vision Vancouver is continuing its tradition of open and member driven party processes. As such the Board of Directors of Vision Vancouver has approved an open nomination and leadership review process that empowers our members with the task of selecting our candidates for the November 2011 election.

· Council, School and Park Board level will have an open nomination contest. The race will be open to approved candidates once they have been approved through the candidate selection process and approved by the Vision Vancouver Board of Directors.

This was not really open nominations since Vision Vancouver board of directors did not allows Vision Vancouver members to just propose candidates and have the members vote on them.

The anti democratic board of directors in 2011 demanded in 2011 that THEY chose which candidates to “allow” to compete by having a candidate selection process first than approval by Vision Vancouver board of directors.

Did ex NPA member and Hillcrest/Riley Park community centre President of the Board of Directors  Jesse Johl use this Vision Vancouver model in his #rulersforlife proposed new amendments to the constitution of the Hillcrest/Riley Park community centre?

1. Eligibility to be a director

d. A new director must be approved by a majority of the current
Board of Directors”

So they’re removing the ability of members to democratically vote for directors.

They want appoint themselves rulers for life. And if one of them dies or wants to quit there is no democratic election.

But for some reason(s), the 2014 Vision Vancouver’s board of directors repudiated the 2011 Vision Vancouver’s board of directors semi democratic semi open candidate nomination.

Did 2014 Vision Vancouver chose to have vision incumbents compete in semi open democratic nominations with ALL candidates, like they did in 2011, with all spots open (besides the Mayoral spot, since Gregor is apparently afraid of competition and/or criticism) after approval by selection committee and the board of directors?

No. 2014 Vision’s board of directors now do NOT trust their members or democracy. They chose directors first, members last, rigged democracy and protecting apparently vulnerable incumbents instead.

In 2011, according the Vision Vancouver fact sheet posted on Frances Bula’s blog January 30th 2011 Vision had semi democratic open nominations for ALL spots besides mayor.

In 2011 Vision had a Gregor Robertson wins if he gets 50%+1 vote “leadership review” instead of an open democratic we’re not the NPA, we let our members decide, election.

From Frances Bula’s blog, the 2011 Vision Vancouver Nomination Fact Sheet

· A leadership review vote will be conducted for Mayor Gregor Robertson. The review will be open to all members of Vision Vancouver eligible to vote at our nomination meeting. The question members will be phrased with a yes or no answer. The success threshold will be a majority of votes cast (50% + 1)

· While we anticipate a spring 2011 nomination, Vision Vancouver will release the specific date at a later time.

·  With respect to nomination campaign expense limits Mayor- $25,000, Councillors, school and park board $5000.  All candidates will be required to disclose their donations and expenditures to Vision Vancouver.

So in 2011, Vision limited mayoral nomination campaign expenses to one single seat at Condo King Bob Rennie organized #25klunch.

Instead of having open nominations in 2014 for all spots beside mayor (Gregor Robertson must be afraid of competition,  and democracy)

This is anti democratic and marginalizes their membership with 2nd class candidates to protect status quo incumbents. Rigged democracy vs real democracy.

Vision Vancouver back room operators calling the shots, marginalizing members contributes to voter cynicism about politicians and will likely reduce voter turnout vs a full real open nomination race for ALL candidates.

So sham democracy from the people who brought you sham public hearings.

None of the media outlets who covered this Friday May 2nd story mentioned that vision changed their semi democratic nominating process from 2011 to an even more rigged closed anti democratic process in 2014 and decried the even further diminishment of democracy.

Too bad.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *